[Assessment of radiological images: who is responsible?] / Beoordeling van radiologische beelden: wie is verantwoordelijk?

This article explores the responsibility of doctors requesting radiological examination. Hereto, 215 cases were analysed, that served at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Tribunals between January 2011 and December 2022. Case law shows that the disciplinary tribunals expect a doctor to look at the images himself, just like the radiologist, to read the radiological report, to critically compare the findings with the clinical presentation, and to have a low-threshold in communication with the radiologist in case of a discrepancy and to discuss the findings with the patient. Case law shows several exceptions to this rule.

Quantifiable Measures of Abdominal Wall Motion for Quality Assessment of Cine-MRI Slices in Detection of Abdominal Adhesions.

Abdominal adhesions present a diagnostic challenge, and classic imaging modalities can miss their presence. Cine-MRI, which records visceral sliding during patient-controlled breathing, has proven useful in detecting and mapping adhesions. However, patient movements can affect the accuracy of these images, despite there being no standardized algorithm for defining sufficiently high-quality images. This study aims to develop a biomarker for patient movements and determine which patient-related factors influence movement during cine-MRI. Included patients underwent cine-MRI to detect adhesions for chronic abdominal complaints, data were collected from electronic patient files and radiologic reports. Ninety slices of cine-MRI were assessed for quality, using a five-point scale to quantify amplitude, frequency, and slope, from which an image-processing algorithm was developed. The biomarkers closely correlated with qualitative assessments, with an amplitude of 6.5 mm used to distinguish between sufficient and insufficient-quality slices. In multivariable analysis, the amplitude of movement was influenced by age, sex, length, and the presence of a stoma. Unfortunately, no factor was changeable. Strategies for mitigating their impact may be challenging. This study highlights the utility of the developed biomarker in evaluating image quality and providing useful feedback for clinicians. Future studies could improve diagnostic quality by implementing automated quality criteria during cine-MRI.

Inter- and Intra-Observer Variability and the Effect of Experience in Cine-MRI for Adhesion Detection.

Cine-MRI for adhesion detection is a promising novel modality that can help the large group of patients developing pain after abdominal surgery. Few studies into its diagnostic accuracy are available, and none address observer variability. This retrospective study explores the inter- and intra-observer variability, diagnostic accuracy, and the effect of experience. A total of 15 observers with a variety of experience reviewed 61 sagittal cine-MRI slices, placing box annotations with a confidence score at locations suspect for adhesions. Five observers reviewed the slices again one year later. Inter- and intra-observer variability are quantified using Fleiss' (inter) and Cohen's (intra) κ and percentage agreement. Diagnostic accuracy is quantified with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a consensus standard. Inter-observer Fleiss' κ values range from 0.04 to 0.34, showing poor to fair agreement. High general and cine-MRI experience led to significantly (p < 0.001) better agreement among observers. The intra-observer results show Cohen's κ values between 0.37 and 0.53 for all observers, except one with a low κ of -0.11. Group AUC scores lie between 0.66 and 0.72, with individual observers reaching 0.78. This study confirms that cine-MRI can diagnose adhesions, with respect to a radiologist consensus panel and shows that experience improves reading cine-MRI. Observers without specific experience adapt to this modality quickly after a short online tutorial. Observer agreement is fair at best and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores leave room for improvement. Consistently interpreting this novel modality needs further research, for instance, by developing reporting guidelines or artificial intelligence-based methods.

Abdominal wall hernia is a frequent complication of polycystic liver disease and associated with hepatomegaly.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Polycystic liver disease (PLD) is related to hepatomegaly which causes an increased mechanical pressure on the abdominal wall. This may lead to abdominal wall herniation (AWH). We set out to establish the prevalence of AWH in PLD and explore risk factors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional cohort study, we assessed the presence of AWHs from PLD patients with at least 1 abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. AWH presence on imaging was independently evaluated by two researchers. Data on potential risk factors were extracted from clinical files. RESULTS: We included 484 patients of which 40.1% (n = 194) had an AWH. We found a clear predominance of umbilical hernias (25.8%, n = 125) while multiple hernias were present in 6.2% (n = 30). Using multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.727 p < .001), abdominal surgery (OR 2.575, p < .001) and disease severity according to the Gigot classification (Type 3 OR 2.853, p < .001) were identified as risk factors. Height-adjusted total liver volume was an independent PLD-specific risk factor in the subgroup of patients with known total liver volume (OR 1.363, p = .001). Patients with multiple hernias were older (62.1 vs. 55.1, p = .001) and more frequently male (22.0% vs. 50.0%, p = .001). CONCLUSION: AWHs occur frequently in PLD with a predominance of umbilical hernias. Hepatomegaly is a clear disease-specific risk factor.

[Potential risks of supervising medical interns]. / Co's en hun risico's.

In this article we extracted potential safety risks of supervising medical interns based on disciplinary cases filed since 2010 at Dutch Medical Disciplinary Boards. The main risks lie in the remote supervision of medical interns. The history and physical examination of complex patients (for example very ill patients or patients with a physical or mental disability) may require a direct form of supervision. Further, the management of medical records by interns requires a proper supervision. There is also a risk of a complaint in patients who do not want an intern to be present during their anamnesis or physical examination.

The utility of in-bore multiparametric magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in men with negative multiparametric magnetic resonance-ultrasound software-based fusion targeted biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of in-bore multiparametric magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate (IB) in patients with visible lesion/s and previous negative software-based multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-targeted biopsy of the prostate (FTB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed prospectively maintained database including consecutive men undergoing IB from March 2013 to October 2017 in 2 European centres expert in this procedure. We selected men with the following criteria: No previous treatment for prostate cancer (CaP), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) lesion(s) PIRADS score ≥ 3, FTB showing no clinically significant cancer (csCaP), and subsequent IB. Patient's characteristics, mpMRI findings, biopsy technique, and histopathological results were extracted. The primary outcome was to determine the detection rate of csCaP, defined as any Gleason pattern ≥ 4. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of positive findings at IB. RESULTS: Fifty-three men were included. Median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR] 64-68), median Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) was 7.6 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.9), and median prostate volume was 59 ml (IQR 44-84). Fifty-six lesions with PIRADS score 3 in 9 cases (16%), 4 in 30 cases (54%), and 5 in 17 cases (30%) were detected. FTB was performed in all cases using a transrectal approach with 3 different platforms (Toshiba, Koelis, and Artemis). Median time between FTB and IB was 3 months (IQR 1-7). A median of 2 cores per lesion were collected with IB (IQR 2-3). No cancer, clinically insignificant and clinically significant cancer were found in 33 (59%), 9 (16%), and 14 (25%) targeted lesions, respectively. Median maximum cancer core length and maximum positive percentage were 9 mm (3-13) and 55% (21%-80%). The only predictor of csCaP on IB was prostate volume (P = 0.026) with an ideal cut-off at 70 ml. CONCLUSION: One in 4 patients with previous negative FTB, IB was able to detect csCaP. According to this study, IB would be of particularly useful in patients with large glands.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 3: Targeted Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: After a lesion has been assessed adequately on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB) is the logical next step. The choice of the MRGB technique, however, is difficult. OBJECTIVE: To show the advantages and disadvantages of the three commonly used MRGB techniques-MRI-ultrasound fusion MRGB (fus-MRGB), direct in-bore MRGB (inbore-MRGB), and cognitive MRGB (cog-MRGB), and to determine when each of the techniques can be used. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Based on expert opinion and literature overview, the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of fus-MRGB, inbore-MRGB, and cog-MRGB are evaluated. Further, the clinical setting of each biopsy strategy is assessed. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Based on expert opinion and literature data, the three biopsy procedures are evaluated, and the important pros and cons are determined. MEASUREMENTS: The basic concept of each biopsy technique is reviewed, which would result in a clinical recommendation. This will be shown in individual patients. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The accompanying video shows how fus-MRGB and inbore-MRGB are performed in our hospital. An important advantage of fus-MRGB is its generally availability; however, it has fusion-error limitations. Although not supported by evidence, inbore-MRGB seems to be better suited for smaller lesions, but is rather expensive. Cog-MRGB is easy to use and inexpensive, but is more operator dependent as it requires knowledge about both ultrasound and MR images. Readers should be aware that our MRGB approach is largely based on expert opinion and, where possible, supported by evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This article and the accompanying video show different MRGB techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of the three biopsy techniques, as well as the clinical setting in which each biopsy strategy is being used in our hospital, are discussed. Fus-MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. Direct inbore-MRGB is used in difficult lesions but is mainly used as a "problem solver" (eg, a negative biopsy with a high suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer). In our opinion, cog-MRGB is best for sampling larger and diffuse lesions. PATIENT SUMMARY: This third surgery in motion contribution shows our approach in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB). Fusion MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. In-bore MRGB is used in selected, difficult cases, mainly as a problem solver. In our point of view, cognitive MRGB seems to be best for sampling larger lesions and diffuse processes.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and follow-up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of men avoiding biopsy because of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings in a prostate MRI expert centre, and to assess the number of clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) detected during follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 4259 consecutive men having mpMRI of the prostate between January 2012 and December 2017, with either a history of previous negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy or biopsy naïve. Patients underwent mpMRI in a referral centre. Lesions were classified according to Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) versions 1 and 2. Negative mpMRI was defined as an index lesion PI-RADS ≤2. Follow-up until 13 October 2018 was collected by searching the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Gleason score ≥3 + 4 was considered csPCa. Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariable logistic regression models were used in the cohort of patients with negative mpMRI and follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, in 53.6% (2281/4259) of patients had a lesion classified as PI-RADS ≤2. In 320 patients with PI-RADS 1 or 2, follow-up mpMRI was obtained after a median (interquartile range) of 57 (41-63) months. In those patients, csPCa diagnosis-free survival (DFS) was 99.6% after 3 years. Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed age as a predictor for csPCa during follow-up (P < 0.05). In biopsied patients, csPCa was detected in 15.8% (19/120), 43.2% (228/528) and 74.5% (483/648) with PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSION: More than half of patients having mpMRI of the prostate avoided biopsy. In those patients, csPCa DFS was 99.6% after 3 years.

Yield of Repeat Targeted Direct in-Bore Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Biopsy (MRGB) of the Same Lesions in Men Having a Prior Negative Targeted MRGB.

Objective: This study's purposes were to determine the yield of repeat direct in-bore magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy (MRGB) (MRGB-2) after the first one was found to be negative (MRGB-1), to correlate with clinical parameters, and to present the subgroup analyses of patients with positive repeat biopsies, despite having a negative initial biopsies. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included patients with MRGB-2 after a negative MRGB-1 both between January 2006 and August 2016. This study included 62 patients (median age, 63 years; interquartile range [IQR], 58-66 years) with 75 sampled lesions during MRGB-2 left for analysis, and 63 lesions were resampled and 12 new lesions were sampled. Included patients had a prostate specific antigen (PSA) at MRGB-1 of 13 ng/mL (IQR, 5.8-20.0) and a PSA at MRGB-2 of 15 ng/mL (IQR, 9.0-22.5). All anonymized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data were retrospectively reassessed according to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 by two radiologists. Images of MRGB were compared to determine whether the same prostate lesion was biopsied during MRGB-1 and MRGB-2. Descriptive statistics were utilized to determine the yield of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at MRGB-2. Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4 was considered csPCa. Results: In 16/75 (21%) lesions csPCa was detected during MRGB-2. Of 63 resampled lesions, 13 (21%) harbored csPCa at MRGB-2. In two patients, csPCa was detected on repeat biopsy, while the volume of the lesion decreased between MRGB-1 and MRGB-2. Conclusion: Patients could benefit from repeat biopsy after negative initial MRGB, especially in the case of increasing PSA values and persisting PCa suspicion in MRI. Further research is needed to establish predictors for positive repeat targeted biopsies.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The main difference between the available magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion platforms for prostate biopsy is the method of image registration being either rigid or elastic. As elastic registration compensates for possible deformation caused by the introduction of an ultrasound probe for example, it is expected that it would perform better than rigid registration. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare rigid with elastic registration by calculating the detection odds ratio (OR) for both subgroups. The detection OR is defined as the ratio of the odds of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy compared with systematic TRUS biopsy. Secondary objectives were the OR for any PCa and the OR after pooling both registration techniques. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement. Studies comparing MRI-TRUS fusion and systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in the same patient were included. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven papers describing elastic and 10 describing rigid registration were included. Meta-analysis showed an OR of csPCa for elastic and rigid registration of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.73, p<0.0001) and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13-1.75, p=0.002), respectively. No significant difference was seen between the subgroups (p=0.83). Pooling subgroups resulted in an OR of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.63, p<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was identified between rigid and elastic registration for MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in the detection of csPCa; however, both techniques detected more csPCa than TRUS-guided biopsy alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: We did not identify any significant differences in prostate cancer detection between two distinct magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion systems which vary in their method of compensating for prostate deformation.

Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is the most commonly used scoring system in prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). One of the available techniques to target suspicious lesions is direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB). OBJECTIVE: To report on the experience and results of MRGB in a large cohort of patients with lesions classified as equivocal (PI-RADS 3), likely (PI-RADS 4), or highly likely (PI-RADS 5) to be clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively included 1057 patients having MRGB, between January 2012 and September 2016, of lesions classified as PI-RADS≥3 on multiparametric MRI. Biopsy-naïve patients, patients with prior negative systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, and patients in active surveillance were included. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measurement is the detection rate of csPCa. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to calculate the differences in proportions. We considered a Gleason score of ≥3+4 as csPCa. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PCa was diagnosed in 35% (55/156), 60% (223/373), and 91% (479/528), and csPCa in 17% (26/156), 34% (128/373), and 67% (352/528) of patients with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. Follow-up of patients with negative biopsy findings resulted in csPCa in 1.7% (5/300) after a median period of 41 (interquartile range 25-50) mo. The evaluation of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) to predict csPCa resulted in 42% of patients with a PI-RADS 3 lesion who could avoid biopsy in case a PSAD of ≥ 0.15ng/ml/ml would be used. In 6% (95% confidence interval, 2-15), csPCa would then be missed. The study is limited because of its retrospective character. CONCLUSIONS: MRGB in lesions scored PI-RADS≥3 yields high detection rates of csPCa in daily clinical practice in cases with previous negative biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In daily clinical practice, direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy of suspicious lesions reported according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System yields high detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy (FGB) and direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB). METHODS: We performed a comparison of csPCa detection rates between FGB and MRGB. Included patients had (1) at least one prior negative TRUS biopsy; (2) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesion and (3) a lesion size of ≥8 mm measured in at least one direction. We considered a Gleason score ≥7 being csPCa. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to determine any differences. RESULTS: We included 51 patients with FGB (59 PI-RADS 4 and 41% PI-RADS 5) and 227 patients with MRGB (34 PI-RADS 4 and 66% PI-RADS 5). Included patients had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 65-72) and a median PSA level of 11.0 ng/ml (IQR, 7.4-15.1) and a median age of 67 years (IQR, 61-70), the median PSA 12.8 ng/ml (IQR, 9.1-19.0) within the FGB and the MRGB group, respectively. Detection rates of csPCA did not differ significantly between FGB and MRGB, 49 vs. 61%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We did not detect significant differences between FGB and MRGB in the detection of csPCa. The differences in detection ratios between both biopsy techniques are narrow with an increasing lesion size. This study warrants further studies to optimize selection of best biopsy modality.

Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy Techniques: Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound, Direct In-Bore MRI, and Image Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Three commonly used prostate biopsy approaches are systematic transrectal ultrasound guided, direct in-bore MRI guided, and image fusion guided. The aim of this study was to calculate which strategy is most cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to compare cost-effectiveness. Literature review and expert opinion were used as input. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the costs of gaining one quality-adjusted life year (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000 (≈$85,000 in January 2017). A base case analysis was performed to compare systematic transrectal ultrasound- and image fusion-guided biopsies. Because of a lack of appropriate literature regarding the accuracy of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, a threshold analysis was performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fusion-guided biopsy compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was €1386 ($1470) per quality-adjusted life year gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus assumed cost-effective. If MRI findings are normal in a patient with clinically significant prostate cancer, the sensitivity of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy has to be at least 88.8%. If that is the case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is €80,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained and thus cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Fusion-guided biopsy seems to be cost-effective compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Future research is needed to determine whether direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy is the best pathway; in this study a threshold was calculated at which it would be cost-effective.

MR-targeted TRUS prostate biopsy using local reference augmentation: initial experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate MR-targeted TRUS prostate biopsy using a novel local reference augmentation method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tracker-based MR-TRUS fusion was applied using local reference augmentation. In contrast to conventional whole gland fusion, local reference augmentation focuses the highest registration accuracy to the region surrounding the lesion to be biopsied. Pre-acquired multi-parametric MR images (mpMRI) were evaluated using PIRADS classification. T2-weighted MR images were imported on an ultrasound machine to allow for MR-TRUS fusion. Biopsies were targeted to the most suspicious lesion area identified on mpMRI. Each target was biopsied 1-5 times. For each biopsied lesion the diameter, PIRADS and Gleason scores, visibility during fusion, and representativeness were recorded. RESULTS: Included were 23 consecutive patients with 25 MR suspicious lesions, of which 11 patients had a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy and 12 were biopsy naïve. The cancer detection rate was 64 % (Gleason score ≥6). Biopsy was negative (i.e., no Gleason score) in seven patients confirmed by follow-up in all of them (up to 18 months). After MR-TRUS fusion, 88 % of the lesions could be visualized on TRUS. The cancer detection rate increases with increasing lesion size, being 73 % for lesions larger than 10 mm. CONCLUSION: Tracker-based MR-TRUS fusion biopsy with local reference augmentation is feasible, especially for lesions with an MR maximum diameter of at least 10 mm or PIRADS 5 lesions. If this is not the case, we recommend in-bore MR-guided biopsy.

Repeated Postoperative Follow-up Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Residual or Recurrent Cholesteatoma.

OBJECTIVE: In our institution, follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) after cholesteatoma surgery is performed at least twice. The aim of this study was to determine the yield of the second follow-up DWI (D-W MRI-2) in patients in whom the first postoperative DWI (D-W MRI-1) was negative for residual or recurrent cholesteatoma. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients were included if 1) they had at least two postoperative DWI examinations after a canal wall up procedure with apparently complete cholesteatoma resection; 2) D-W MRI-1 was performed between 6 and 24 months after surgery and D-W MRI-2 performed at least 6 months after D-W MRI-1; 3) both DWI examinations were of good quality and covering the whole mastoid-middle ear region; 4) D-W MRI-1 was unequivocally negative for cholesteatoma; and 5) there was no clinical suspicion on otoscopy of recurrent cholesteatoma nor a surgical intervention between these two postoperative DWI examinations. In total, 45 separate ears in 44 patients were included. RESULTS: In 14 ears (31%) D-W MRI-2 was positive (n = 8) or equivocal (n = 6) for cholesteatoma. In six of eight patients with positive D-W MRI-2, follow-up surgery was performed. Cholesteatoma was found in five of them. None of the patients with equivocal findings on D-W MRI-2 was operated on. Patients with positive D-W MRI-2 were of young age. There were no observable differences for sex, side, time between surgery and D-W MRI-1, time between surgery and D-W MRI-2, or time between D-W MRI-1 and D-W MRI-2, or for the location of cholesteatoma at surgery. In the study period there was a trend to perform D-W MRI-1 and D-W MRI-2 earlier after initial surgery. In the same period, there was an evident decrease in average age of the patient population. CONCLUSION: Despite cholesteatoma surgery without macroscopic residue, clinical follow-up and routine first follow-up DWI without any signs of residual or recurrent disease, repeat follow-up DWI showed evidence of cholesteatoma in 31% of patients. On the basis of the findings in this study, repeated follow-up DWI is recommended.